DCT

2:18-cv-06378

Celgene Corp v. DR Reddy's Laboratories Ltd

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: Celgene Corporation v. Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories, Ltd., 2:18-cv-06378, D.N.J., 04/12/2018
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the District of New Jersey based on Defendant Dr. Reddy's Laboratories, Inc. being incorporated and having its principal place of business in New Jersey. Jurisdiction over Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories, Ltd. is based on its alleged continuous and systematic contacts with the state and its appointment of a U.S. agent in New Jersey.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s filing of an Abbreviated New Drug Application (ANDA) with the FDA for generic versions of Plaintiff's REVLIMID® drug product constitutes infringement of five patents related to methods for safely delivering drugs with known adverse side effects.
  • Technical Context: The technology domain involves computer-implemented systems for managing the distribution of potentially hazardous pharmaceuticals to ensure that only qualified patients receive them and to monitor compliance with safety protocols.
  • Key Procedural History: The action was triggered by Defendant’s filing of an ANDA with a Paragraph IV Certification, asserting that the patents-in-suit are invalid, unenforceable, or will not be infringed. The patents are listed in the FDA's "Approved Drug Products with Therapeutic Equivalence Evaluations" (the "Orange Book") for the drug REVLIMID®. Subsequent to the filing of this complaint, an Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceeding at the USPTO resulted in the cancellation of claims 1–9 and 11–32 of the lead ’720 patent, with only claim 10 surviving.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2000-10-23 Earliest Priority Date ('720, ’977, ’784, ’886, ’531 Patents)
2001-11-13 U.S. Patent No. 6,315,720 Issues
2003-05-13 U.S. Patent No. 6,561,977 Issues
2004-06-29 U.S. Patent No. 6,755,784 Issues
2012-11-20 U.S. Patent No. 8,315,886 Issues
2014-01-07 U.S. Patent No. 8,626,531 Issues
2018-02-26 Defendant sends Paragraph IV Notice Letter to Plaintiff
2018-04-12 Complaint Filed

II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis

U.S. Patent No. 6,315,720 - “Methods for delivering a drug to a patient while avoiding the occurrence of an adverse side effect known or suspected of being caused by the drug”

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent describes the challenge of distributing beneficial but potentially hazardous drugs, such as the teratogen thalidomide, in a way that prevents them from reaching contraindicated individuals (e.g., pregnant women) (’720 Patent, col. 1:21-49). Existing programs were identified as lacking robust mechanisms to ensure full compliance and control over the distribution channels (’720 Patent, col. 2:5-11).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention discloses a method for controlling drug delivery through a centralized "computer readable storage medium." Prescriptions are filled only after consulting this medium to verify that the prescriber, pharmacy, and patient are all registered and approved. A core component of the solution is the assignment of patients to different "risk groups" based on predefined parameters, which then dictates the type of information (e.g., periodic surveys, diagnostic tests) that must be collected to maintain approval for receiving the drug (’720 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:50-65).
  • Technical Importance: This system created a data-driven framework for managing and mitigating the risks of potent drugs, enabling their therapeutic use while implementing a higher degree of safety control than was previously possible with voluntary programs or simple warnings (’720 Patent, col. 1:50-2:11).

Key Claims at a Glance

The complaint alleges infringement of "one or more claims" of the ’720 Patent but does not identify any specific independent or dependent claims asserted against the Defendant (Compl. ¶29).

U.S. Patent No. 6,561,977 - “Methods for delivering a drug to a patient while restricting access to the drug by patients for whom the drug may be contraindicated”

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: As a continuation of the application leading to the ’720 Patent, the ’977 Patent addresses the same fundamental problem of safely distributing drugs with serious potential side effects to prevent their use by contraindicated patients (’977 Patent, col. 2:2-5).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention adds a further layer of control by requiring a pharmacy to retrieve a unique "prescription approval code" from the computer system before it can dispense the drug. This code is generated only after the system confirms that all prerequisites are met, such as the registration of all parties and the patient's compliance with risk-group-specific requirements. This transforms the system from a passive registry to an active, transaction-based authorization platform (’977 Patent, Abstract; col. 14:41-51).
  • Technical Importance: The introduction of a prescription approval code provides a real-time, auditable checkpoint for each individual dispensation, significantly enhancing the ability to enforce safety protocols and restrict access compared to a static registration list (’977 Patent, col. 14:41-51).

Key Claims at a Glance

The complaint alleges infringement of "one or more claims" of the ’977 Patent but does not identify any specific independent or dependent claims asserted against the Defendant (Compl. ¶38).

U.S. Patent No. 6,755,784 - “Methods for delivering a drug to a patient while restricting access to the drug by patients for whom the drug may be contraindicated”

  • Technology Synopsis: This patent, a continuation in the same family, describes methods for controlling the delivery of hazardous drugs. The technology centers on restricting access by requiring a pharmacy to obtain a prescription approval code from a computer readable storage medium before filling a prescription, with the code's issuance being contingent on verifications related to the patient, prescriber, and compliance with safety protocols (’784 Patent, Abstract).
  • Asserted Claims: The complaint asserts "one or more claims" of the patent (Compl. ¶47).
  • Accused Features: The accused features are Defendant’s proposed generic lenalidomide products and the associated methods of use and administration that will allegedly be encouraged by the product's labeling (Compl. ¶47, ¶50).

U.S. Patent No. 8,315,886 - “Methods for delivering a drug to a patient while restricting access to the drug by patients for whom the drug may be contraindicated”

  • Technology Synopsis: This patent further details the computer-implemented system for managing drug distribution. It describes methods where prescriptions are filled only after a pharmacy retrieves a prescription approval code, the generation of which depends on the patient's assignment to a risk group and the collection of additional information probative of the ongoing risk of an adverse side effect (’886 Patent, Abstract).
  • Asserted Claims: The complaint asserts "one or more claims" of the patent (Compl. ¶56).
  • Accused Features: The accused features are Defendant’s proposed generic lenalidomide products and the systems and methods for their use that are expected to be implemented or encouraged post-FDA approval (Compl. ¶56, ¶59).

U.S. Patent No. 8,626,531 - “Methods for delivering a drug to a patient while restricting access to the drug by patients for whom the drug may be contraindicated”

  • Technology Synopsis: This patent describes a system for communicating over a network to authorize drug delivery. It claims a computer device with an interface to receive a pharmacist's prescription request and a generator to create a prescription approval code based on comparing that request with stored registration and risk group information for the patient (’531 Patent, Abstract; col. 18:10-48).
  • Asserted Claims: The complaint asserts "one or more claims" of the patent (Compl. ¶65).
  • Accused Features: The accused features are Defendant’s proposed generic lenalidomide products and the anticipated systems and methods of their administration, which allegedly practice the claimed invention (Compl. ¶65, ¶68).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The accused instrumentalities are Defendant’s proposed generic versions of Celgene’s REVLIMID® (lenalidomide) capsules, in dosages of 2.5 mg, 5 mg, 10 mg, 15 mg, 20 mg, and 25 mg (Compl. ¶1, ¶24).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint identifies the act of infringement as Defendant’s submission of ANDA No. 209348 to the FDA, which seeks approval to manufacture and sell these generic products before the expiration of the patents-in-suit (Compl. ¶1, ¶24). The complaint alleges that the labeling for REVLIMID® instructs and encourages healthcare providers and patients to administer the drug according to the methods claimed in the patents-in-suit (Compl. ¶14). Because a generic drug's labeling must be substantially the same as the branded drug's labeling, the complaint's theory is that Defendant's proposed product will necessarily encourage and instruct users to perform the patented methods.

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint does not identify specific claims from any of the asserted patents, nor does it provide claim charts or detailed infringement contentions. Instead, it makes general allegations that the Defendant's submission of its ANDA constitutes infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(e)(2)(A), and that subsequent commercialization will constitute direct, induced, and contributory infringement (Compl. ¶¶29, 31-33, 38, 40-42, 47, 49-51, 56, 58-60, 65, 67-69). The narrative infringement theory rests on the premise that the FDA-mandated Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy (REMS) program required for lenalidomide will compel Defendant and users of its generic product to practice the methods claimed in the patents-in-suit.

  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Scope Questions: Without specific asserted claims, a primary question is which claims, if any, read on the specific steps and system architecture of the REMS program that Defendant will be required to implement for its generic lenalidomide product.
    • Technical Questions: A key factual question will be how the specific functions of Defendant's proposed drug distribution and safety program operate and whether those functions meet the technical limitations of any claims Celgene ultimately asserts.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of key claim terms, as it does not identify any specific claims being asserted from the patents-in-suit. Any analysis of claim construction would be premature until Plaintiff identifies the claims it intends to litigate.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges both induced and contributory infringement for all five patents-in-suit. The inducement allegations are based on the assertion that Defendant's product labeling will instruct physicians, pharmacists, and patients to perform the steps of the patented methods (Compl. ¶14, ¶32, ¶41, ¶50, ¶59, ¶68). The contributory infringement allegations are based on the assertion that Defendant's products are especially adapted for an infringing use and have no substantial non-infringing use (Compl. ¶33, ¶42, ¶51, ¶60, ¶69).
  • Willful Infringement: The complaint does not contain an explicit allegation of willful infringement. However, for each patent, it alleges that the case is "an exceptional one" and requests attorneys' fees under 35 U.S.C. § 285 (Compl. ¶36, ¶45, ¶54, ¶63, ¶72). The factual basis for pre-suit knowledge of the patents is Defendant's filing of a Paragraph IV Certification and its sending of a Notice Letter to Celgene (Compl. ¶26-27).

VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case

  • A core issue will be one of infringement by regulatory necessity: Will the specific steps mandated by the FDA's REMS program for generic lenalidomide force the Defendant and users of its product to perform actions that fall within the scope of Celgene's asserted patent claims, or can compliance be achieved without practicing the patented methods?
  • A key evidentiary question will be one of validity and claim scope: Following the cancellation of most claims of the ’720 patent in an IPR, a central question will be whether the surviving claim (and the claims of the other asserted patents) are valid over the prior art and broad enough to cover the specific implementations of a modern drug safety program.
  • A critical procedural question is one of specificity: As the case develops, Celgene will be required to identify the specific claims it asserts for each patent. This disclosure will be a pivotal event, defining the technical boundaries of the dispute and enabling substantive analysis of claim construction and infringement.